Effects of preexisiting beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues.

Abstract

This study examined the influence of people's beliefs about the certainty of knowledge, the strength of their beliefs about a controversial issue, and their tendency to enjoy effortful thinking on their interpretation of controversial information. Ninety-six undergraduates completed an epistemological beliefs questionnaire (M. Schommer, 1990), the Need for Cognition Scale (J. T. Cacioppo, R. E. Petty, & C. F. Kao, 1984), and indicated the degree to which they believed that HIV causes AIDS. They then read a text that presented two conflicting views regarding the HIV-AIDS relationship and wrote a concluding paragraph for the text. Regression analyses revealed that the less students believed in certain knowledge, the less extreme their initial beliefs, and the higher their need for cognition, the more likely they were to write conclusions that reflected the inconclusive nature of the mixed evidence they read.

Comprehension of Multiple Documents With Conflicting Information: A Two-Step Model of Validation

“…The results from Mason and Boscolo (2004) support the conclusions that can be drawn from Kardash's and Scholes's (1996) results. In the study from Mason and Boscolo, high school students read a dual-position expository text on genetically modified food and wrote a concluding paragraph for the dual-position text after reading.…”

“…A number of studies with multiple texts on socioscientific issues found that reader characteristics such as epistemological beliefs (Mason & Boscolo, 2004), belief strength (Kardash & Scholes, 1996;McCrudden & Barnes, 2016) and prior knowledge, and level of education (Wiley, 2005) can moderate text-belief consistency effects. In particular, an advanced epistemological understanding, strong prior knowledge, a higher level of education, and weaker beliefs seem to prevent the occurrence of text-belief consistency effects.…”

“…In particular, an advanced epistemological understanding, strong prior knowledge, a higher level of education, and weaker beliefs seem to prevent the occurrence of text-belief consistency effects. For example, Kardash and Scholes (1996) identified epistemological beliefs as a reader characteristic that works against a text-belief consistency effect. In a multiple regression analysis with prior beliefs, need for cognition, and epistemological beliefs in the certainty of knowledge (assessed with the questionnaire by Schommer, 1990) as predictors and the conclusion score as criterion, prior beliefs and certainty of knowledge emerged as significant predictors, each explaining 9% of variance in the criterion.…”

“…This task prompted readers to elaborate on the belief-inconsistent information, leading to a better comprehension of the controversial issue and a more balanced mental model of the scientific controversy. Kardash and Howell (2000) collected think-aloud data based on the dual-position text debating the possibility of a causal link between HIV and AIDS (same material as in Kardash & Scholes, 1996). Think-aloud data for belief-consistent and belief-inconsistent paragraphs were analyzed only for the majority of undergraduate participants (26 of 38) that held the prior belief that HIV causes AIDS.…”

“…Kardash and Scholes (1996) used a dual-position text that included two contradictory positions about whether a causal link between HIV and AIDS exists. The two positions were clearly separated, appearing in different paragraphs, and each position was clearly linked to one of two sources (names of scientists), resulting in a situation that resembled multiple documents comprehension.…”